7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

1/17

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMEND REPAIR

(FINAL REPORT)

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

2/17

This report, authorized by the transportation director, has been prepared to provide technical information and guidance forpersonnel in the Michigan Department of Transportation, the FHWA, and other reciprocating agencies. The cost of publishing50 copies of this report at $7.50 per copy is $374.80 and it is printed in accordance with Executive Directive 1991-6.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

3/17

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.Research Report R-1380

2. Government AccessionNo. 3.Recipients Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle Prestressed Concrete Beam End Repair 5. Report Date January 6, 2000

7. Author(s) Douglas E. Needham, P.E. 6. Performing Organization Code

9. Performing Organization Name and AddressMichigan Department of TransportationConstruction and Technology DivisionP.O. Box 30049Lansing, MI 48909

8. Performing Org Report No.

RR-1380

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and AddressMichigan Department of TransportationConstruction and Technology DivisionP.O. Box 30049Lansing, MI 48909

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract/Grant No.

15. Supplementary Notes 13. Type of Report & Period CoveredFinal Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

16. Abstract This final report details the construction problems that arose while performing Michigan

Department of Transportations prestressed concrete I-beam (PCI-beam) end repair on three in-servicestructures, actions taken to correct the problems, the structural condition of the beams after the repair,and a cost comparison between the PCI-beam end repairs with a total superstructure replacement. The

three structures that received the PCI-beam end repairs were S05 and S11 of 33171 (NB and SB US-127 over Vine Street) and S07 of 47014 (NB and SB US-23 over Center Road). Problemsencountered ranged from cutting position dowels, cutting prestressing strands, improper preparation of

the bottom of the beam, lack of bevels on the concrete repair patch corners, improper mixing of theGrade D Latex Modified concrete, to improper placement of the end diaphragms. Although problemswere encountered with these first field repairs, they can be resolved with plan modifications, along

with increased experience and knowledge of these types of repairs. After performing a costcomparison between the PCI-beam end repairs and a superstructure replacement, we found that thecost for the PCI-beam end repairs ranged from 35 percent to 69 percent the cost of a superstructure

replacement.Therefore, awaiting the long term performance of the PCI-beam end repair, it is apparent that the PCI-beam end repair is economically beneficial when compared to a total superstructure replacement.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to thepublic through the Michigan Department ofTransportation.

19. Security Classification (report)Unclassified

20. Security Classification (Page)Unclassified

21. No of Pages 22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

4/17

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Although many people participated in this project, space and memory will not allow a complete

list of everyones involvement. However, the following people should be mentioned; Roger Tilland David Juntunen for project guidance, Larry Pearson and Chris Davis of the StructuralResearch Unit for performing field inspections, Brighton and Lansing Transportation Service

Centers for keeping us up-to-date with the construction schedules of the three bridges, and the

Bridge Design Division for drawing the final plan details.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

5/17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Preliminary Field Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Construction Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2

Monthly Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4

Plan Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

6/17

1

INTRODUCTION

The majority of Michigans prestressed concrete I-beams are in good condition with one

common problem; the beam ends are experiencing more deterioration when compared with theremainder of the beam. Since roughly 60 percent (and rising) of the bridges built today are

constructed with prestressed beams, this concerns bridge maintenance engineers. Therefore, theStructural Research Unit initiated a two part research project. The first part developed aprestressed concrete I-beam (PCI-beam) end repair procedure and verified its effectiveness byexperimenting with a 1143-mm prestressed I-beam in the laboratory as described in, Prestressed

Concrete Beam End Repair (Interim Report R-1373), which was published in September 1999.The second part involved performing the PCI-beam end repair on three in-service structures, S05and S11 of 33171 (NB and SB US-127 over Vine Street) and S07 of 47014 (NB and SB US-23

over Center Road). The construction problems that arose during the field repairs, actions takento correct these problems, the structural condition of the beam after the repairs, along with a costcomparison between the PCI-beam end repairs and a superstructure replacement are described in

this final report.

The repair procedure developed during this project should be performed on prestressed concreteI-beams where the reinforcing steel is exposed or unsound concrete is present. MichiganDepartment of Transportation is currently evaluating passive cathodic protection systems for

PCI-beam ends that are not deteriorated to the point of needing the overcasting repair, butcould use some protection from further deterioration.

PRELIMINARY FIELD INSPECTIONS

Prior to the start of each project, the PCI-beams on all three structures were inspected for cracksand/or delaminations not located within the influence of the repair procedure. This initial

inspection was used to determine if structural damage was caused as a result of the repair.

CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS

Although the field repairs went rather smoothly, we discovered the following problems duringthe PCI-beam end repairs: cut position dowels; cut prestressing strands; improper preparation of

the bottom of the beam; lack of bevels on the concrete repair patch corners; improper mixing ofthe Grade D Latex Modified concrete; and improper end diaphragm placement.

On all three structures, the position dowels were removed by air carbon arch gouging in order toreplace the elastomeric bearing pads, which should not have occurred. Figure 1 displays a beamend with its position dowel and elastomeric bearing pad removed. The following notes were

located in the contract plans to protect the condition of the existing position dowels, Existingposition dowels are to remain in place and care shall be taken not to damage them during

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

7/17

2

elastomeric pad removal along with Neither hand chipping the pier cap nor flame cutting willbe allowed for removing existing elastomeric bearings. Even though these statements were

located in the contract plans, no attempt was made to remove the existing elastomeric bearingpads without permanently removing the position dowels.

With the position dowels removed, the transverse restraint of the superstructure, along with thelongitudinal and transverse restraint of the elastomeric bearing pads are lost (providing thefrictional force between the concrete and elastomeric pad is exceeded). Through conversations

with various MDOT personnel, along with the FHWA, the main purpose of Michigans positiondowels is to restrain the elastomeric bearing pad and not the beam end. American Association ofState Highway and Transportation Officials Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 16th

Edition (AASHTO Standard) Division 1A, Section 5.2, states that if a mechanical device is usedto connect the superstructure to the substructure it shall be designed to resist a horizontal seismicforce in each restrained direction equal to 0.20 times the tributary weight (reaction). With the

mechanical device, i.e., the position dowel, removed, there is no other consideration of seismicforces required for the design of structural components since Michigan is located in a Category A

seismic zone. However, Section 5.3, which states a minimum bearing support length, must stillbe satisfied. In addition to the seismic requirements, Section 14.6.6.4 of AASHTO Standardunder elastomeric pad design states that if the longitudinal force (i.e., temperature force) that

causes the elastomeric pad to deform exceeds 20 percent of the minimum vertical force, the padshall be secured against horizontal movement. Restraints were not placed on the structures toaccount for the loss of elastomeric pad restraint.

Cutting the prestressing stands at the concrete repair patch limit was the next encounteredproblem. In order to eliminate a feather edge of the concrete patch material, the repair detail

specifies a 13 mm deep saw cut at removal limits (bottom flange only). These cuts were madeusing a hand-held circular saw with a diamond tip blade starting at the top of the bottom flange

and projecting downward. It appeared that no measures were taken to limit their depth. Thisresulted in some cuts about 64 mm deep, roughly five times the depth as specified in the contractplans. With only 50 mm of clear cover for the prestressing strands, it is apparent that theprestressing strands would be severed at this depth, refer to Figure 2. Even after numerous

reminders to the Contractor not to damage the strands, this was a reoccurring problem on allthree structures. All of the cut strands were located within the effective shear depth. Theeffective shear depth is the distance from the beam end where the reaction force in the direction

of the applied shear introduces compression into the region. Therefore, due to the conservativenature of the design and the proximity of the damaged strands to the beam end, it was decided tonot risk further damage to the beam by repairing the strands.

As previously described, the repair detail specifies a 13 mm deep saw cut at removal limits

(bottom flange only) in order to eliminate a feather edge of the concrete patch material.Although an attempt to create these saw cuts to the sides of the bottom flange was made, little tono attempt was made to create them to the underside of the bottom flange. This lack of

preparation resulted in a feather edge. In addition to the lack of durability, the feather edge is

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

8/17

3

aesthetically unpleasing since the patch limits vary on the beam ends. Also, the forms were notplaced flush with the bottom flange, which resulted in about a 3 mm lip on the underside of the

beam. Refer to Figure 3 for a profile of the patch limits.

Along the lines of eliminating a feather edge, the PCI-beam end repair specifies a bevel edge

along all exterior corners of the patch (i.e., vertically along the web and horizontally along thelower portion near the bottom flange). Although this detail is displayed clearly in the contractplans, only some of the patches received the required bevel. Some patches only received a bevel

along the vertical exterior corner of the web, Figure 4, and some patches only received the properbevel detail on the horizontal lower portion of the patch near the bottom flange, Figure 5.

Mixing problems with the Grade D Latex Modified concrete were encountered even though aconcrete mobile mixer was used. Possible explanations could be a low shoot angle during themixing process or a blocked gate. Even though most of the mixing problems were resolved prior

to placing the concrete, in some cases they were not. Figure 6 displays the improper mixing (andvibration) of the Grade D Latex Modified concrete. The patch surfaces where aggregate was

exposed was hand patched for aesthetic purposes.

As stated in the contract plans, there were two different options for the Contractor to reinstall the

end diaphragms. On two of the three structures, neither option was used. The first optionaccording to the contract plans is to construct the end diaphragm using a one on one haunch upfrom the top of the bottom flange then extending parallel to the top of pier to the adjacent beam.

The second option is to extend a line between the top of the bottom flange and omit the haunch.In the second option, the added concrete quantity is not included in the pay item. These optionsare specified for ease of future bridge inspections. For two of the structures, S05 and S11 of

33171, the end diaphragm was cast directly on top of the pier cap using thin lumber as spacersbetween the bottom of the patch and the top of the pier, refer to Figure 7. This makes future

inspection of the beam ends impossible.

The penetrating epoxy concrete sealer, as specified in the contract plans, proved to be anesthetically unpleasing topcoat, refer to Figure 8. The epoxy based sealer was chosen over the

silane and siloxane based sealers due to its anticipated increased service life. In the past, theepoxy based sealer was reserved for applications where it was not visible to the motoring public,i.e., top of pier caps. However, for this project it was specified to be placed the on the exterior

surface of the fascia beams as well as the beam ends that did not receive the repair.

MONTHLY INSPECTIONS

Part two of this research project includes monthly inspections of the PCI-beams for a period ofone year following the repairs. Through these inspections, we will be able to determine if anystructural damage occurred to the beams as a result of the repairs. After six months of

inspection, only two additional cracks were found on S11 of 33171. These longitudinal cracks

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

9/17

4

are located on the underside of the east fascia beam flange, span 2. One crack, 900 mm long, islocated on the north end and the other crack, 300 mm long, is located on the south end of the

beam. Both cracks initiated under the concrete overcast patch and extend into the unrepairedconcrete. It is apparent that the cracks are a result from the construction activity due to theirlongitudinal orientation. The monthly (or bimonthly) monitoring will continue until August

2000. At that time, an addendum to this report will be generated stating the one yearperformance of the beams. This future addendum will be generated to expedite the publishing ofthis report.

PLAN REVISIONS

Due to the problems encountered during the field repair of the PCI-beam ends, the followingrevisions to the standard detail sheet for the PCI beam end repair have been made.

Use one repair method for PCI-beams with and without an end block.

By eliminating the detail for beams without and end block, the bottom flange will haveadded protection against future chloride infiltration.

Add the following plan note - 25 mm (1") max depth saw cut at removal limits(bottom flange only)(do not cut prestressing strands)

This should eliminate the problems associated with cutting the prestressing strands.

Extend the patch 75 mm below the bottom flange.

This will eliminate the problems associated with the feather edge along with not placingthe forms flush with the bottom of the beam.

Use an acrylic based concrete sealer in lieu of the penetrating epoxy sealer.By switching to an acrylic based sealer the coating will be esthetically pleasing.

Refer to Appendix A for the revised plan details.

COST COMPARISON

We were fortunate to have both a PCI-beam end repair procedure (S05 & S11 of 33171) and a

superstructure replacement (S06 & S12 of 33171) included in the same job. Therefore, we were

able to perform a direct cost comparison between the two operations. The superstructurereplacement was performed on two structures similar in size and location as the structures with

the PCI-beam end repairs. The total deck areas for the superstructure replacement and thePCI-beam end repairs are roughly 1025 m2 and 900 m2, respectively.

Using the tabulation of bids obtained from the December 4, 1998, letting, along with the contract

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

10/17

5

plan quantities, we determined the total bid cost for the repair and for the superstructurereplacement from three contractors. Note that the contract award was received by the first

contractor. Refer to Figure 9 for a breakdown of the bid items, quantities, and unit prices. Therange in bids for the PCI-beam end repair are described below.

1. Midwest Bridge - $307,7752. CA Hull - $361,4763. Hardman Construction - $558,408

Two of the three bids were below the engineers estimate of $412,733.

The range of bids for the superstructure replacement are as follows. The contract award wasreceived by the first contractor. Refer to Figure 10 for a breakdown of the bid items, quantities,and unit prices.

1. Midwest Bridge - $867,164

2. CA Hull - $964,7943. Hardman Construction - $814,506

All three estimates exceeded the engineers estimate of $746,098.

As can be seen for the bid prices, the PCI-beam end repair ranges from 35 percent to 69 percent

the cost of the superstructure replacement. Therefore, awaiting the long term performance of thePCI-beam end repair, it is apparent that the PCI-beam end repair is economically beneficial whencompared to a total superstructure replacement.

Although we cannot directly compare the PCI-repair cost of S07 of 47014 to a superstructure

replacement on the same job, we will include the range of bids from the December 4, 1998,letting for information only. The contract award was received by the first contractor. Refer toFigure 11 for a breakdown of the bid items, quantities, and unit prices. The total deck area forthese PCI-beam end repairs was roughly 950m2.

1. Interstate Highway - $593,5082. Ajax Paving - $655,908

3. Angleo Iafrate - $589,8594. Tony Angelo - $621,188

All four estimates exceeded the engineers estimate of $411,392.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

11/17

6

CONCLUSIONS

Although problems were encountered with these first field repairs, they can be resolved with themodifications made to the plan sheets along with increased experience and knowledge of these

types of repairs. Performing this repair, along with replacing the deck joint, should extend the

service life of the structures at least 30 to 40 years. Comparing the cost of the PCI-beam endrepair to that of a similar structures superstructure replacement on the same job, we discoveredthat the PCI-beam end repair is economically beneficial when compared to a total superstructurereplacement.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

12/17

FIGURES

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

13/17

8

Figure 1 - Position dowel removed.

Figure 2 - Prestressing strands cut.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

14/17

9

Figure 3 - Feather edge on bottom flange.

Figure 4 - Bevel only along vertical exterior corner of web.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

15/17

10

Figure 5 - Bevel only on horizontal lower portion near bottom flange.

Figure 6 - Exposed aggregate.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

16/17

11

Figure 7 - End diaphragm too close to top of pier.

Figure 8 - Appearance of concrete penetrating epoxy sealer.

7/29/2019 mdot_c&t_r-1380_67568_7

17/17

APPENDIX A